101–110 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is an alternative to unions that gives workers some power in the relationship between worker and employer?
The ability to get another job.
The last letter sent from Fiera to The Star[1] is scathing. Fiera is trying so very hard to play the victim to The Stars mean and "underhanded" tactics to get information about their operations. It probably would have served them better to just remain silent instead of sending this response. [1] http://projects.thestar.com/temp-employment-agencies/letters...
I don't know, I find that letter pretty convincing actually. They seem pissed, but they also make a lot of valid points.
Having worked at two manufacturers in the Midwest, anecdotally the majority of forklift drivers, line workers on specific lines, and even many white collar office roles were filled by temp agencies. A similar structure existed for engineering too; we would have a problem and the engineering firm with workers under the same roof would develop a solution. For the temp workers the motivation was always very clear and ve…
Ending right to work laws and bringing back unions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, limiting immigration is a solution. While I personally am more favorable toward immigration, I respect people who support Trump's opinion on this. They have a point, the contract between citizens is...between citizens. Bad economics from the point of view of maximum efficiency of human labor across all humanity. I was not suggesting we just wait complacently, more lamenting that it seems to be the only not-a…
> Bad economics from the point of view of maximum efficiency of human labor across all humanity. Only if you think of humanity as a labour pool. Immigration hurts developing countries as it siphons away labour and especially educated labour, preventing their development... If the goal is economic parity across nations, you help the development of other countries through investment, not by taking their workers.
I don't understand how this strategy works. Company A doesn't want to hire employees because employees have rights. Instead, they hire temps from Company B who abuses their employees' rights. Why doesn't the government start policing the abuse of rights by Company B? Why doesn't the government pass laws that acknowledge that these employees are truly employees of Company A?
Read up on the concept of "moral hazard." These temp companies are small entities, often run out of homes. If you go after them, they'll simply liquidate and fold up shop. Small entities have an advantage in highly regulated environments, because the most they can lose is 100% of their assets, while they stand to gain many multiples of that. Incorporation laws prevent owners from being liable for the debts of the cor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, I find that letter pretty convincing actually. They seem pissed, but they also make a lot of valid points.
At this point isn't it reasonable to assume that companies will not tell you the truth if it puts them in a bad light, and you would need to go undercover to find that truth? Companies cant tell their shareholders on one side that they are doing everything to maximize profit, and on the other side say that they will show their operations with all the good and the bad to anyone who asks.
This whole thing seems like such a non-story to me. Maybe it's because I've worked in factories before, but I've personally had more harrowing experiences on my 1st day than anything mentioned in this article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't really get this line of thinking, it just seems like a denial of globalization, automation, and economics. So what is the qualitative change in these three factors that changed so much in your opinion? Globalization was important for the US from its very inception (example: European price and production developments where a big factor in the Panic of 1819[1]). And productivity growth has been more or less c…
I think it has been the gradual march of technological progress and globalization. For example remember the civil war was largely fought over protectionist trade policies for northern manufacturers. And that was in the age of sail when many goods would not even make if from North America to Europe. Similar protectionist policies would be unthinkable now. Also the rise of America from being an upstart industrial power…
Having worked at two manufacturers in the Midwest, anecdotally the majority of forklift drivers, line workers on specific lines, and even many white collar office roles were filled by temp agencies. A similar structure existed for engineering too; we would have a problem and the engineering firm with workers under the same roof would develop a solution. For the temp workers the motivation was always very clear and ve…
The solution is simple. Criminal prosecution of the executives of the company, coupled with treating white collar crime the same way we treat street crime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDO6HV6xTmI&feature=youtu.be...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Bad economics from the point of view of maximum efficiency of human labor across all humanity. Only if you think of humanity as a labour pool. Immigration hurts developing countries as it siphons away labour and especially educated labour, preventing their development... If the goal is economic parity across nations, you help the development of other countries through investment, not by taking their workers.
Smart people emigrating to a place where their talents can be put to use and then sending their greater earnings back home is efficient. I don't think that economic parity across nations should be a primary goal of any nation's policy, but I do think it is basically an inevitable, positive side effect of trade. As an aside, I'm also not 100% sure maximum efficiency of human labor across all humanity should be a goal…
It's not though, because the sudden influx of foreign money in a concentrated number of hands causes inflation in the home country, making the cost of living higher for those living there, while the majority are still working lower paying jobs. Not to mention the efficiency loss from the fact they're driving down wages in the host country; so they're losing market value on one end, and then driving inflation on the other (and when prices are higher than the local economy can support it's not efficient).
My ex came from a country that suffered from mass emigration, the place is a complete shit-show and is actually less developed today than it was 30 years ago. Half the buildings are abandoned, most are dilapidated, corruption is everywhere, and now the place is a major drug trafficking hub.
> I don't think that economic parity across nations should be a primary goal of any nation's policy, but I do think it is basically an inevitable, positive side effect of trade.
This should definitely be a goal of anyone who cares about alleviating global poverty and suffering.
> As an aside, I'm also not 100% sure maximum efficiency of human labor across all humanity should be a goal of national policy either, but that is usually what I consider good economics.
There's no such thing as good or bad economics. Economics just describes what is. You can have multiple 'good' or 'bad' policies. It really just depends what you want to optimise for.
Also, maximum efficiency often comes at the cost of driving the price of labour down. If everything was 100% efficient, far less labour would be required than is being used right now, so in the end it comes down to ownership of capital and how things are distributed.
Perfect is the enemy of the good.